Don’t hold your breath.
You bait me post after post, ignore and obfuscate, and sling ad hominems instead of discussing the issue, and then toss in a snide ‘retraction’ when I call you out for being a coward and a jerk?
Cry me a river, sweetheart.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but – yuck. What an impoverished idea of personhood you have. On second thought, what the fuck – take it any way you wish.
Yes, indeed you do. And believe me, I do, while you (apparently) do not, having settled for an easily defensible position. I would, however, take issue with the idea that “cognitive ability of humans…is unremarkable in the world”. In fact, I’d say that much of our intellectual intake is exactly an extension of remarking on it.
No, I most decidedly was not. In fact, I think this is where one might legitimately bring “potential” into it – quite obviously, an embryo has the capability for some cognitive capacity that, say, a rock does not.
Go back to Aristotle – “man is a (the only) rational animal”. Personally, I believe that “personhood” does imply “higher thought”, whatever that may be (and no, I don’t know what it is). Rather inconveniently, from an ethical standpoint, this does lead me to the position that an embryo is not a person.
No, it isn’t – at least, not from my end.
You’re right there. As I said to Stratocaster, I’m not interested in debating abortion per se. In fact, I find participation in such debates tedious. As I’ve said over and over, I just want to know about your ontology for personhood, since that’s what you’re claiming. As I also said to Stratocaster, this might be a hijack that shouldn’t be pursued.
Now I have a clear answer – it’s purely the genetics. And, I suppose you would include something about the “natural growth”, from conception to death. OK. Well, that certainly gives you a nice bright line to which to hew. Works nicely in an abortion debate (which is what this thread is, after all), but leaves me cold in respect to any other position – metaphysical, ethical, etc. – one derives from it. And I’ll leave aside issues of abnormal development, what is “natural”, cloning, genetic engineering, artifical life, etc. as a further hijack that should be avoided.
Acutually I can’t really take it any way. I don’t really know what you mean.
Just because my position is easily defensible doesn’t make it wrong.
I agree with you in that the extent of human cognitive ability is is indeed quite remarkable and as far as we can tell without peer. As I understood it though that is not really what we were talking about. We were talking about using cognitive ability in general as the mark of personhood. In that regard there are many creatures that have some cognitive ability, and therefore that humans have cognitive abiltiy in of itself is unremarkable.
Ok then
And so we are now back to setting some intelligence level below which humans cease to be people. And where exactly would we draw this line?
You can feel whatever you like about my position, but as it is it seems as though I am the only one placing a view on the table. It is one thing for you to criticise my opinion as being wrong. It is another to posit your own and try and defend that. I suggest that if you want to critique the views of others you should first work out what you think. It is rather frustrating debating with people when they refuse to be pinned down to any one position. I have given you a few challenges to your position, but you seem to just shrug them off as being things that you haven’t decided on. Work that out and then maybe the debate would be a bit more interesting.
Sure
Alive as meaning that the whole organism is working together to grow and or change.
Human is to me independant entity that derives from another human. In the case of the twein I would consider them two individual people because they are certainly more independent than singular. Each may be needed to sustain the life of the other, but that IMHO is not enough to consider them one entity.
I think my definition is good enough to be workable, in that applies easily to the vast majority of cases. When you start reaching for medical oddities like conjoined twins most definitions tend to break down anyway. There are some things that defy an easy categorisation. That does not mean that the current categories are inadequate, it just shows that whatever categories you come up with some things will fall outside them.
But anyway sentience has a whole host of problems all its own, and doesn’t really bring much to the table in terms of definitions.
Fair enough
Sorry if I am a bit terse with this point, but frankly I am getting sick of having to explain this (IMHO) simple distinction in these sorts of threads.
A embryoe, left alone in a womb, will develop into an adult human. There is no other process that needs to happen to give the embryoe this ability. All other cells, including sperm cells, skin cells, ect will only ever develop into independant entities if they undergo some sort of transformation. Until that transformation occurs they are not the equivalent of an embryoe which in of itself is an independant entity.
- If electrical impluses defines sentience for you, then my computer is sentient. It even responds to outside stimulii. Is turning that off a form of murder?
- The brain signals in these cases of coma, drunkenness, ect. are due more to base unconscious body functions such as bearthing and heartbeat. Since the people involved are not conscious then the brain activity cannot really be seen as a sign of sentience. Sentience involves some for of consciousness, which these cases do not have
- Embryoes necessarily develop brain features as part of their natural life. This process continues thoughout the life of the person until about their early 20s. Where is the line by which their brain is developed enough to warrant sentience. As pointed out by others brains start developing at 8 weeks or sooner, which if just the presence of some sort of personhood, would mean abortions after this time should be outlawed. On a deeper level all that is needed for brain development happens at conception, so why shouldn’t the line be drawn there?
But if that is true where is your moral outrage at the billions of animals being slaughtered every year? Why are you wwasting time on abortion when so many lives are being lost around the world? Should all killings of animals be outlawed? Should we spend the money and resources that we do saving human lives on saving animal lives?
I think that the problem extends beyond mere onconsistency. I think the general lack of personhood given to sentient animals shows that many pro-choice people don’t actually believe their premises.
That’s OK. Obviously a well thought out answer is better than a half-assed one. Have a think about it and get back to me.
My main concern was that you would start to value the disabled as less valuable than the fully able. It seems from the rest of your position that since you take any intellectual ability as sign of personhood, then so long as the diabled were conscious you would take them.
There is however the question of the unconscious. Since the unconscious display no signs of sentience, (in that being unconscious they are incapable of rational thought), would you consider them to have personhood? So for instance if you replaced the 5 disabled children with 5 unconscious people, would you take them even through they display no evidence of sentience?
As I pointed out earlier, this is not all that is needed. Energy input is required, in the form of foods ingested by the mother.
So? Take away anyone’s food and they die. And it’s not like newborns just pop out and start hunter-gathering for themselves. None of this impacts on the personhood of babies or other people, so why should it be different for foetuses.
Because you were saying that all that is needed in order for a embryo/foetus to develop brain structure was to be “left alone” in the womb. That’s not the case - further outside intervention is required.
It doesn’t impact on the personhood of babies or other people because they’ve already developed brain structure - in their case, were you to take away their source of food, they will die exactly the same. But they’ll still have that brain structure. Foetuses, depending on their gestation time and the nutrients they’ve recieved, haven’t yet got that brain structure.
Yes, that’s true. But it’s almost as shallow as saying a bachelor is an unmarried man. Almost, because there are obvious issues that arise when you stipulate “natural growth” and “alive”. As I said, I just wanted to know what your “ontological argument” was – now that I know, I’ll leave it to others to argue those finer points.
I think you are completely mischaracterising the situation. Reasons include
-
The body anturally divides up calories taken in between mother and child. There is no conscious effort required to make sure that the baby is being fed. That is taken care of by the body naturally. One might as well insist that the mother has to keep her heart beating.
-
Women have a natural tendancy to eat. The only way the embryoe could starve would be if the mother herself was satrving. Nothing extra is required therefore by the mother since she will probably be eating anyway (at least if she wants to live). Certainly eating well during pregnancy will help the foetus to grow, but eating badly will only cause the death of the foetus in extreme cases. After all women in famine ridden countries are having children. Good nutritian is optimal but it is hardly necessary.
-
The extra calorie intake required during the first trimester is minimal at best. By the end of the first trimester the foetus has started to develop the all import brain structure, and thus by the parameters you set down it no longer matters what is needed by the mother. Since the mother doesn’t really need to increase her calorie intake during that period it is hard to argue that something extra has to be done by the mother when all that is needed is done by the body automatically.
I agree it is an outside effort which is delivered to the foetus passively. The mother certainly doesn’t get to pick what nutrients go to her, and which to the foetus, you’re right. Yet, the mother does need to eat more - an extra amount - in order to sustain the foetus, and to allow it to develop.
Actually, if we’re talking about “natural” processes, if the scenario is that either the mother or foetus can survive, then the foetus is “naturally” killed. The mother’s body has that as it’s priority when it comes to food, not the foetus. And the fact remains that a mother must eat more than she would normally to maintain her health than when she were not pregnant.
Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that the mother just eats the same amount as she normally would, keeping the baby alive but at the cost of hurting her own health - because this would mean pregnancy is in all cases very life-threatening.
[/quote]
3) The extra calorie intake required during the first trimester is minimal at best. By the end of the first trimester the foetus has started to develop the all import brain structure, and thus by the parameters you set down it no longer matters what is needed by the mother. Since the mother doesn’t really need to increase her calorie intake during that period it is hard to argue that something extra has to be done by the mother when all that is needed is done by the body automatically.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the extra intake required during the first trimester is minimal - yet, it is there. An amount, however small, is required. Thus, extra outside intervention is required in order for the foetus to develop brain structure.
That it is done automatically has no bearing on this. The fact remains that some extra effort, an added intervention, is required. It may be small. It may be automatic. But it is required, and without it, that foetus will not develop brain structure, either fully or partially. So I refute your statement that all that is required for a foetus to develop brain structure is for it to be left in the womb.
- The extra calorie intake required during the first trimester is minimal at best. By the end of the first trimester the foetus has started to develop the all import brain structure, and thus by the parameters you set down it no longer matters what is needed by the mother. Since the mother doesn’t really need to increase her calorie intake during that period it is hard to argue that something extra has to be done by the mother when all that is needed is done by the body automatically.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the extra intake required during the first trimester is minimal - yet, it is there. An amount, however small, is required. Thus, extra outside intervention is required in order for the foetus to develop brain structure.
That it is done automatically has no bearing on this. The fact remains that some extra effort, an added intervention, is required. It may be small. It may be automatic. But it is required, and without it, that foetus will not develop brain structure, either fully or partially. So I refute your statement that all that is required for a foetus to develop brain structure is for it to be left in the womb.
[/QUOTE]
And I refute your refutation. Despite your handwaving the fact is that in the first three months of pregnancy very little, if any, extra calories are needed for the foetus to develop naturally. Even after the first three months only a small amount, about 300 calories (or a couple of cans of soda) is the optimal calorie increase for a pregnant mother.
Even if a mother didn’t increase her calorie intake one iota in the first trimester the foetus would still develop within normal parameters. Possibly it may not develop as well as it would with slightly more calories, but it certainly wouldn’t die. And there would be enough calories for the foetus to start developing a brain structure. Listening to you it would seem that the population of countries where there is famine would be plummeting because people can’t have children unless they get some massive amounts of calories. There are plenty of people in the third world who exist on far lower calorie intakes that we do in the west, and they still manage to have children. Women don’t NEED to increase their calorie intake to have children, unless it is already dangerously low and endangering her health. It takes a dangerously low calorie intake to actually kill the foetus.
And besides, the regulation of eating is something that happens within the body anyway. Pregnant women have increased appetites. For the most part women don’t need to consciously eat more food because they are pregnant. If anything they mostly have to be careful of the types of food that they eat so that they don’t over-consume and gain fat, and so that the get a good (but not necessary) nutrient mix. There are also cases of people (teens mostly) who go months before they recognize they are pregnant. Even though they don’t realise it their bodies take care of everything naturally. I mean heroin addicts have babies, and they are not the most health minded individuals on the planet.
And really, since the US is facing an obesity epidemic how difficult is it to intake those extra calories. I mean many women in the west are already taking ni more calories than they need, and are getting fat. What if one of those women got pregnant? Since they already have the calories would you say that at least in these cases the women don’t have to do anything extra?
Hmm. Actually, I think you’ve convinced me. A foetus doesn’t entail a large enough drain on resources that the mother definetly has to eat more in order to keep up with. It is certainly the case that the foetus requires this extra intervention, but the mother does not necessarily have to go out of her way in order to provide this - it simply lowers her own health status.
And just for those following along, 300 calories is not a huge amount. There are any number of reasons (not just pregnancy) why someone would need to intake 300 more calories. A major reason could be increased activity. So for instance 1 hour power-walking will burn about 300 calories. Also many people intentionally lower their calorie intake by 300 calories or more to loose weight. So while a calorie deficit will cause you to loose weight, 300 calories is not a dangerous amount by any stretch of the imagination.
Could you give me a cite for this number?
CMC fnord
[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Could you give me a cite for this number?
This one says 300
This one says about 350.
Obviously it is a ballpark figure given a lot of factors, including current calorie intake and activity during pregnancy compared with before.
I’m not crying, fella. You’ve provided no end of amusement. I appreciate it, really.
For those of you interested about the story of the baby I posted (post #432 - Life of sick baby ‘intolerable’), the parents have won their fight to keep the baby alive on a ventilator.
Story here.
Ah yes, that was the Finding Nemo kid. I remember reading about that. I do hope the doctor’s opinion on him is wrong, though I can’t help feel it isn’t. A horrible situation for everyone concerned.
This just (almost) in,
[
](http://www.indianz.com/News/2006/013061.asp)CMC fnord!